Your comment on that post had me howling!!
Yeah, that cat doesn't look happy at all and it's a true testament to his character that he hasn't torn into that child.
And I wasn't even that mean...I was just honest.
And at least now we know his name. Poor Red.
So they should...keep the cat instead of making an effort to get him into a cat-friendly family? Or they shouldn't have had kids? I'm honestly lost here.
Maybe they should stop letting their kid sit on the cat and take pictures of it.
If the cat isn't happy, yeah - find a new home. But it's obvious why the cat's unhappy. They let their kid use it as a chair or a pony.
Isn't it fun when it instantly becomes "us versus them?" Oh we don't have kids so we can't see how HA HA FUNNY it is to let a kid mistreat an animal. I'm sure it's fucking hilarious once you've let your brain atrophy from misuse like that person has.
I hate stupid people like that.
I always give my United Way money to our local no kill shelter. Screw people. This makes me incredibly mad as well.
I saw that and am not surrpised that you'd chime in. I wanted to, but it just didn't seem worth the trouble and I might get all flamed because I'm childfree *and* don't have cats. The OP only created a journal to spam davis sq anyway, has no friends listed and no entries other than the same ones they posted.
I couldn't leave it without comment. I tried to be polite and non-imflammatory...but I was just appalled.
It's like when you see injustice. You cannot remain silent.
2006-10-04 03:45 pm (UTC)
Because I have to at least get it saved here...
Me: Still deleting comments you don't like, huh?
Mattdm: Just your big strawman arguments and disrespectful garbage, and my well-intentioned but foolish responses. It was distracting.
Me: I'm disrespectful toward you because you seem completely unable to grasp the concept of personal responsibility.
There have been no strawman arguments. I don't care what your excuses are - if you allow your child to sit on your cat long enough to take a picture (a picture, I should add, that is NOT at all blurry because of your alleged attempts to quickly take it and get the kid off, as a lack of sharpness or perfect focus is NOT the same as motion blur), which you clearly have done at least twice, not to mention however many times the kid's sat on him and you DIDN'T have your camera handy, that leads me to one conclusion:
You're a bad parent, and a bad pet owner.
It's a shame your lack of responsibility has led to you needing to find the cat a new home. It's a shame that the cat has to suffer for it, but it's obviously the right thing to do now.
Mattdm: Obviously, we don't *ALLOW* her to sit on the cat, and you can see that the pictures are all blurry because they were taken in haste and then the cat rescued.
But he really doesn't seem to be physically hurt by it. In the top picture, I walked into the room, and there they were, sitting like that for who-knows-how-long. (Well, less than a few minutes, because she's not really left alone by herself.) He looked at me and gave a sad little meow -- but not an in-pain cry.
In the second picture, I already had the camera in my hand because she was actually feeding him from his cat food bowl seconds before, and I wanted to get a picture of that cuteness.
Like many new parents, the camera is almost affixed to my hand, so I don't miss things -- even short-lived ones. If he *were* being hurt, don't think for a second we wouldn't have stopped that without taking the five seconds to take a picture. Note a lack of tail-pulling pictures, and until we taught her that that was forbidden, that was a much more serious problem.
The problem is not actually physical abuse. It's that she doesn't respect his personal space. I thought these pictures illustrated that pretty well, but apparently they're freaking people out. I'm sorry about that, because it's clearly a distraction.
Me: Uh, those pictures are not blurry at all.
Mattdm: Um, yes they are, as anyone can see. The first two, obviously, not the third. Remember it's not as obvious in 800x600 sized-down versions, but still jumps out at me as I assume it would to anyone with any knowledge of photography. Since your userinfo goes on about this being your big hobby, it's even more clear that you're trolling. Please stop, because this is a serious and emotional issue for us and it's hard for me *not* to respond even though I know you're just trying to get me all riled up.
Me: I really don't get you at all. None of those pictures have typical motion blur. In fact, the first one looks almost still enough to be close to a portrait style of shot.
If you're seeing blur in those, maybe it's your own eyes.
Mattdm: Who said anything about motion blur? There's no motion blur because they're basically not moving because, as I said, the cat doesn't really have a strong reaction. They're just *out of focus*.
Me: Even the focus is pretty good on those. Not perfect, but hardly the type of thing where you hurried the shot because you only had a second or two and couldn't get the tripod set up. It's not like all you can make out are some blobs. Obviously when you shrink an image down, some imperfections are lessened.
You tried to make it sound like you rushed the photos and saved the cat. Your pictures are not indicative of that. The first one in particular, the details are easy to make out. The second one looks like it was in a darker spot with the flash giving most of the light. Trust me, I know - in a darker area it's harder to get a clear focus.
The point stands - you did allow your kid to sit on your cat. If your excuse is "We can't stop it from happening every time," then that's a crap excuse. Supervise things better.
2006-10-05 01:46 am (UTC)
Re: Because I have to at least get it saved here...
Hm. Because I thought that they were very good photos, speaking from a purely aesthetic standpoint.
I was thinking about this all day today. Why not give the cat a cat-door to a room the kid can't get to? Or a cat-tree, that the cat can climb to escape the kid? They had the cat a lot longer than the kid...surely they could have made him happy if they'd only tried.
And just because I haven't any kids of my own...I have friends who have. And they had cats (or dogs) first. And none of them have gotten rid of any family members, to my knowledge.
They're idiots. If they wanted to keep the cat, they would find a way to make him "happy." I mean, it's not that hard. Just think of the cat as a roommate, a member of the family...and the rest will follow.
Aw, cute kitty! I would take him but we are full-up! :-D
It's weird... Lincoln has never even attempted to sit on one of the cats. He just knows it's wrong.
Hee! I was waiting for either you or Bjorn to see this...
I know I tried to ride really big dogs in my time...but not cats.
Well, without having looked at the pics, I must still say "idiots". Kalle and the cats go along very well, and we see it as part of his upbringing to get along with and respect animals. If kids don't learn to deal with animals, they will IMO become less empathic. Getting rid of Red is copping out.